inversecondemnation.com

CA10 On Causby, Open Range, And Corner Crossings: Owners Have A Right To Exclude, But Not If Doing So Fully Encloses Public Lands

The opinion gets that diagrams are good. 

Here's the latest in a case we've been following. 

A case that should end up in Property casebooks (it will almost certainly make an appearance in our William and Mary Eminent Domain and Property Rights course in the fall).

Dirt lawyers know the "ad coelum" doctrine (owner owns airspace, and down to Hades) has a lot of practical challenges in the modern world. The Supreme Court decided a while back in United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) that no, it isn't violating the surface owner's property rights for aircraft to fly high up. In the modern world, the owner can't reasonably expect to be compensated for invasions into the coelum, except when the invasion is down fairly low, and likely to cause a problem on the surface. The doctrine has some continuing vitality, especially in that all-to-frequent question that dirt lawyers get: if my neighbor's tree overhangs my property line, can I trim the branches or pick the fruit? But how low does it go?

For more on that, check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape, No. 23-8043 (Mar. 18, 2025), a case presenting a very interesting -- some might say metaphysical -- property issue.

The diagram above is from the opinion, and illustrates the dispute. The "checkerboard" below from the District Court's opinion shows the land ownership patterns in the relevant area of Wyoming. Hunters, who wanted to hunt on public BLM-managed land (blue) adjacent to Iron Bar's private property (red) needed a way to get to the public hunting grounds without trespassing on Iron Bar's private property. That meant no touching of the red squares.

Your mission: go from blue squares to blue squares
without touching any of the red squares

The hunters' journey is called "corner crossings" because, well, they are crossing the land at the corners of the boundaries. Here are the actual parcels, and some of the corner crossings at issue (again, from the District Court).

Of course, these lines on a map don't actually exist on the ground. The actual points of contact for the parcels "meet at an infinitely small point" that "like a point in mathematics, are without length or width." We did say this was going to be kind of metaphysical.

But the corners are marked and the hunters trying to traverse from one public parcel to another public parcel without trespassing into private property, could locate at least the approximate location of these infinitely small points. "[T]he three hunters were met with two steel posts, each with a 'No Trespassing' sign, that were connected together with a chain, a padlock, and some wire." A locked "gate" that doesn't prevent anyone from actually getting from here to the other side of that chain, but nonetheless represents the corners and the private nature of the adjoining parcels.

Schrödinger's Gate

The post in the ground between the signs is the location of the corner. Other than what is depicted above, "there were no posts, fencing, or buildings within one-quarter of a mile from the corner."

The hunters could not squeeze between the signs and the chain to get from one BLM parcel to another. What to do? No one seems to be watching, so how about just walking around? That would entail physically trespassing on Iron Bar's private property, and these hunters were very conscientious.

Did they try the Twister thing? No, "one by one, each grabbed one of the steel posts and swung around it, planting their feet only on Section 14 (BLM) and section 24 (BLM), but passing through the airspace above Section 23 (Plaintiff [Iron Horse]) and/or Section 13 (Plaintiff)." In holding onto the steel posts and swinging around them to cross from Section 14 to Section 24, there is no evidence the Defendants caused any damage to Plaintiff's property." During other hunts in later years, the hunters wanted to avoid all this grabbing and swinging and "in an effort to not touch Plaintiff's steel posts when crossing ... they brought a steel A-frame ladder[.]" They propped up this and use it for crossing without touching Iron Bar's land, nor its posts.

Now that is dedication.

Eventually, the private owner sued the hunters in civil trespass actions and the District Court ruled in the hunters' favor because there's a public right to access public property, and even though the private owners have a right to exclude from their own land, they don't have the right to erect barriers to the public accessing public land.

The Tenth Circuit started with Cedar Point, John Adams, property rights, and the right to exclude. This is a "core" property rights, and the court acknowledged that subject to aircraft flight, the surface owner does own the airspace. The court offers a hat tip to Causby, limiting an owner's property rights to the airspace the owner is able to occupy or use in connection with the land (even if the owner does not actually so use the airspace).

The court also noted that under Wyoming state law, this is likely an actionable civil trespass. Yes, very likely. Slip op. at 24. But "that does not end the inquiry[,]" because federal law may ok corner crossings on its own. The court concluded that the federal Unlawful Enclosures Act and interpreting caselaw "have overridden the state's civil trespass regime[.]" Id.

After going through the statute and several cases interpreting the Act, the court held:

We extract from these cases that the UIA proscribes the “exclusive use and occupancy of any part of the public lands” and further prohibits conduct that “prevent[s] or obstruct[s] free passage or transit over or through the public lands.” See §§ 1061, 1063. The controlling principle is that checkerboard landowners cannot maintain a barrier that has the effect of fully enclosing public lands and preventing complete access for a lawful purpose. Bergen, 848 F.2d at 1511–12. When a landowner denies checkerboard access, he imposes a proscribable nuisance under federal law, “notwithstanding such action may involve an entry upon the lands of a private individual.” Camfield, 167 U.S. at 525. At the same time, the government—and by extension its licensees (i.e., the public)—do not have an “implied easement to build a road” across private holdings to reach public lands. Leo Sheep, 440 U.S. at 669. Leo Sheep did not speak to, and is not controlling for, the type of limited airspace intrusion ratified by the district court.

Slip op, at 38.

So let's see if we get this. The owners here have a right to exclude corner-crossers. But the Act says that the public has a right to access public lands, which means any private owner that is getting in the way of that -- even where that owner does nothing affirmative to impede public access -- is creating a nuisance. Slip op. at 41 ("The UIA, in contrast, contemplates a limited physical intrusion necessary to abate a nuisance—inclosure of the public lands.").

So you have a right to exclude, but if you exercise that right, you are creating a nuisance. Is that right? Sorry not sorry. 

Following up on that, the Tenth Circuit rejected the owner's argument that if thusly interpreted, the Act is a taking. "There is some force to that argument," the court began, but [and there's always a "but," isn't there?], "Bergen assessed a similar argument and rejected it." Slip op. at 46. "That is not to say more recent Supreme Court precedent may cast doubt on Bergen's logic. Cedar Point Nursery, for example[.]" Id.

But Bergen left open the possibility that an owner, if she can conceive of a way to maintain the right to exclude without also enclosing public lands ... have at it, owner. Id. at 47. In the end, this looks to us more like the court saying there's a balance that needs to be made between public access, and private rights. And in the court's view, the break goes to the public. We're not sure that's the right way to look at it, especially in light of Armstrong (a case that doesn't show up in the opinion), which says that which way the balance between public and private rights breaks isn't as important as who bears the cost when it breaks towards the public.

So here's a stupid idea: why not instead of trying to regulate and restrict the owner's right to exclude, the feds take it by eminent domain. We do that for the Rails to Trails Act, why not here?

We think there's the seeds of a great screenplay in here, in case your dirt lawyer gig isn't working out and you want to be in the movies.

Iron Bar Holdings, LLC v. Cape, No. 23-8043 (10th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)

CFC: Attorneys Fee Shifting "incentivizes the government to negotiate fairly, minimize delays, and avoid frivolous takings"

One from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that is worth your time at least to skim. And the opinion is worth reading if only for the court's conclusion which we've reproduced above.

Hyatt v. United States, No. 23-399 (Jan. 16, 2025) is, as the court described it, "a typical rails-to-trails action[.]" The issue resolved here was how much the property owners were entitled to recover in attorneys fees and expenses, now that they prevailed on the merits.

Under the Uniform Relocation Act, a property owner who obtains compensation for a regulatory taking may recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The opinion noted:

Specifically, in actions brought under the Tucker Act or the Little Tucker Act in which a plaintiff is compensated for the taking of property, the URA provides for the recovery of “such sum as will in the opinion of the court or the Attorney General reimburse such plaintiff for his reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable attorney . . . fees, actually incurred because of such proceeding.” [42 U.S.C.] § 4654(c).

Slip op. at 6. The court awarding the owners their fees and costs is not why we suggest you read this opinion.

As we noted above, you can skim for the reasons why, and then go to the last page. Because in the Conclusion, the court lays out the reasons why shifting fees and costs to the government is merited:

The spirit of the URA is intended to hold the United States accountable in takings cases by deterring unnecessary litigation. The prospect of paying substantial attorney’s fees incentivizes the government to negotiate fairly, minimize delays, and avoid frivolous takings. Moreover, URA fees compensate property owners for the expenses incurred in defending their rights and securing just compensation. This helps level the playing field, as the government possesses significant resources. By requiring the government to pay reasonable attorney’s fees, the URA helps enforce the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of just compensation and promotes transparency and accountability in government acquisition processes. The government’s characterization of this litigation as “straightforward” is inapposite given its unwillingness to even respond to the Claim’s Book process and insistence on contesting liability. (Def.’s Resp. at 16). In this case, Plaintiffs have shown that they are entitled to their requested fees.

While this case places the court's reasons in the URA context, the same vibe seems equally true when you think of fees and costs being part of the notion of just compensation. We know that under the Fifth Amendment, and most (but not all) state constitutions, fees and costs in a takings case (whether direct or inverse) are not considered part of just compensation. But if the purpose of fee-shifting is to prevent unnecessary litigation, fair negotiation by the government, minimizing delays in providing compensation, and avoiding frivolous takings, shouldn't the same vibe control?

Hyatt v. United States, No. 23-499 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 16, 2025)

Breaking News: Come Join Us For The 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, San Diego, Jan 30-Feb 1

With our tongues firmly planted in cheeks, the Planning Chairs for the upcoming 42d edition of this popular and venerable Conference bring you this "breaking news" report from San Diego!

As you know, in addition to being the best nationally-focused conference on the subjects that we love and a venue that is nearly certain to have some of the warmest winter weather in the continental United States, and we went on-location from some of the local highlights: the beaches, Torrey Pines, the Zoo, Balboa Park, the Gaslamp Quarter, and Coronado to name but a few.

More about the Conference here, including registration information.

Here are some of the highlights:

• Property Rights at the Supreme Court: DeVillier and Sheetz and What's Next
• Slow Take: Possession, Rent, Relocation, and Offset
• The Jury's View: How Jurors See Your Case
• From Penn Coal to Penn Central: How to Prove "Too Far"
• Leveraging Expertise in Eminent Domain Litigation: Working with Land Planners, Engineers, and Other Predicate Experts
• Kelo at Twenty: What Changed, What Didn't, and What's on the Horizon
• Viva Las Vegas: How the Nevada Judiciary Upheld Property Rights in 180 Land's Inverse Condemnation Taking
• Ethics: Guiding the Trolley: Perspectives on Professional Ethics in Eminent Domain for Lawyers, Appraisers, and Right of Way Agents
• "I Think I Shall Never See" Just Compensation For a Tree: Strategies to Securing Recovery for Trees, Crops, and Fixtures

And more. Check out the complete agenda here. Registration information here. 

We especially welcome first-time participants, or those returning after an absence. Connect (or reconnect) with your colleagues from across the nation.

The 41st Conference was in New Orleans. Here's a report of that event, and here are our reports from prior conferences in Austin and Scottsdale.

Don't miss out on San Diego: we have had record attendance in recent years, so hold your space now. #EminentDomain2025

CFC: Complaint Adequately Pleaded Physical Taking Of JFK Assassination Film

Check out the opinion of the Court of Federal Claims in Nix v. United States, No. 23-704C (Dec. 11, 2024). Fascinating stuff.

We post it here not because it breaks new ground, but due to the subject matter of the lawsuit: the alleged taking of a film that captures (in part) the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963.

No, this isn't the famous Zapruder film, which was also the subject of a well-known takings claim. This case involved the "Nix film," taken that fateful day "from an angle opposite the more famous Zapruder film. The Nix film thus captures Abraham Zapruder and the area around him, where some claim a gunman other than Lee Harvey Oswald was hiding." Slip op. at 2. 

Nix licensed the film to UPI, which "unbeknownst to him ... transferred the Nix film to the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA]." Id. In the 1970s, the Committee sent it off to a private outfit for "enhancement," after which the original film seems to have disappeared with no one admitting to possessing it.

In 1992, Congress adopted the JFK Records Act, which requires that all "assassination records" held by the Feds be transferred to the National Archives to create a publicly-accessible collection. After confirming via a FOIA request with the National Archives that the original film was lost while in the custody of UPI, Nix's heirs sued the United States for a taking.

Later, the outfit that was asked to do the enhancement back in the 1970s said that it sent the original to the National Archives in 1978. Eventually the Archives "produced documents including the HSCA photo control log, which appeared to show that the Nix film had been sent by HSCA to Aerospace, but which did not show that it had been returned." Slip op. at 4.

The takings claim alleged that by adopting the JFK Records Act, the United Stated effected a physical taking of the Nix film by permanently transferring possession of the film to the public (shades of rails-to-trails cases). The feds responded with two main arguments: (1) this is an old, stale claim and the six-year Tucker Act statute of limitations ran a long time ago; and (2) the complaint failed to allege a physical takings claim. The CFC rejected both arguments. 

We won't get into the details of the court's SOL analysis, but will note that even though the SOL cannot be tolled, the court held that Nix's claim did not accrue until 2021. Yes, generally speaking, a claim that a statute works a physical takings claim accrues when the statute is adopted, unless the claim was "inherently unknowable" at the time of adoption, or if the defendant concealed the taking. The court concluded that the Nix plaintiffs didn't know of the taking until 2021, when they realized the Archives received the Nix film. Slip op. at 6 ("Plaintiff alleges that he was unaware that the government still had possession of the Nix film until he was informed that Aerospace had sent the film to NARA."). Moreover, "[t]he pleadings support an inference not only that Plaintiff was diligent in his efforts to find the Nix film, but that the government concealed its possession." Slip op. at 7. 

The CFC also denied the government's 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the complaint adequately pleaded a physical takings claim. The court first noted that "[a] physical taking occurs when 'the government physically takes possession of an interest in property for some public purpose[.]'" Slip op. at 10. Even where government does not take title or all the sticks, if it acquires "one of the rights that makes up a property owner's metaphorical bundle of sticks," it must pay compensation. Id.

Here, the complaint alleges that the JFK Records Act, "directs [the Archives] to create a 'collection of records' relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. That direction includes all assassination records that were in [the Archive]'s possession when the law went into effect[.]" Id. The complaint alleged that the Nix film has been in the Archives' possession since 1978. Thus, if proven, these allegations would support a claim for compensation:

Once collected by NARA, assassination records generally must be disclosed to the public. JFK Records Act § 5. But the law makes no provision for return of any privately created records to their creators. The government in fact conceded at argument that if the Nix film is part of the NARA collection created under the JFK Records Act, it will never be handed back. Tr. at 10–11, 13.11 If the Nix film was in fact in NARA’s possession when the JFK Records Act went into effect, possession was permanently transferred to the government by operation of law — a classic example of a taking. See Horne, 576 U.S. at 361–62 (“The Government’s actual taking of possession and control of [property] gives rise to a taking as clearly as if the Government held full title and ownership.”) (quotes omitted).

Slip op. at 11.

The feds responded by arguing that if it took the property, then compensation could only be determined in an alternative dispute resolution process, like when the government took the Zapruder film: "[t]he government argues that the absence of such a process for the Nix film indicates that no taking occurred." Slip op. at 11. If you are scratching your head at this argument, you are not alone -- the CFC was similarly not impressed: "[t]hat is a non sequitur, of course: Courts often recognize that the government has taken property without any formal process at all." Id. We wouldn't put this as gently as the court did, and we'd characterize this as a pretty stupid argument.

So the Nix complaint lives to fight on. Worth reading.

Nix v. United States, No. 23-704C (Fed. Cl. Dec. 11, 2024)

Registration For The 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference Is Underway (Don't Miss Out!)

Get ready to join your colleagues and friends in San Diego for the 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

The 41st Conference was in New Orleans. Here's a report of that event, and here are our reports from prior conferences in Austin and Scottsdale.

Here are some of the highlights of the upcoming Conference:

• Property Rights at the Supreme Court: DeVillier and Sheetz and What's Next
• Slow Take: Possession, Rent, Relocation, and Offset
• The Jury's View: How Jurors See Your Case
• From Penn Coal to Penn Central: How to Prove "Too Far"
• Leveraging Expertise in Eminent Domain Litigation: Working with Land Planners, Engineers, and Other Predicate Experts
• Kelo at Twenty: What Changed, What Didn't, and What's on the Horizon
• Viva Las Vegas: How the Nevada Judiciary Upheld Property Rights in 180 Land's Inverse Condemnation Taking
• Ethics: Guiding the Trolley: Perspectives on Professional Ethics in Eminent Domain for Lawyers, Appraisers, and Right of Way Agents
• "I Think I Shall Never See" Just Compensation For a Tree: Strategies to Securing Recovery for Trees, Crops, and Fixtures

And more. Check out the complete agenda here. Registration information here. 

We especially welcome first-time participants, or those returning after an absence. Connect (or reconnect) with your colleagues from across the nation.

Don't miss out: we have had record attendance in recent years, so hold your space now.

Come, join us!

A Property Rights Advocate Is An Environmentalist Who Has Been Overregulated: Anti-Takings Advocate Argues For The Right To Exclude

You remember that old adage (or maybe its a cliché?) that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged?" Well, here's your environmentalist analog.

In Echeverria v. Town of Tubridge, No. 23-AP-291 (Aug. 2, 2024), the Vermont Supreme Court held that property owners' lawsuit asserting their right to prohibit the town from allowing bicycling on hiking trails on their land, and to prohibit it from allowing members of the public onto the property to maintain the trails, is ripe. The owners asserted that as the owners, they alone have the authority "whether and how to maintain the legal trails that cross their property." Slip op. at 2. Here are the details: the owners assert

sole and exclusive authority to decide whether and how to maintain the legal trails that cross their property. They alleged that the expected entry onto their property by volunteers seeking to exercise the Town's maintenance authority will adversely affect their plan to maintain the trails as natural forest paths and minimize destruction of vegetation on the trails. They further alleged that such entry would constitute a trespass and taking in violation of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions. They sought a declaration that the selectboard does not have the legal authority to engage in maintenance or repair activities on the legal trails of the town or to delegate such authority to private individuals.

Slip op. at 3.

The trial court dismissed, agreeing with the town that the lawsuit was not ripe. No one had actually been authorized to enter the property to maintain the trails. The owners appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

None of this would be particularly remarkable, except that the landowner asserting the government overriding his private property right to exclude is a taking is none other than well-known environmental advocate, takings law blogger, and lawprof John Echeverria. The former Director of the now-defunct Georgetown Environmental Law & Policy Institute (those of you who were around when GELPI was active remember it primarily as the leading anti-takings laboratory, and for its annual conference for strategizing ways of defeating takings claims). An anti-takings guy asserting a taking when it comes to his property rights.

Now don't get us wrong: we wish the good law professor well in this quest. We do love it so. Because it brings us a smile -- and perhaps a small frisson of satisfaction -- to witness this road to Damascus moment, especially on the subject of property rights, takings, and ripeness, a topic the plaintiff has written a lot about:

Oh, in case you are interested, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, and held that the owners' claims are ripe. The court reached this conclusion by treating this as a pleadings matter and not judicial gatekeeping, an analysis we've been pushing on this side for a long time:

We conclude that plaintiffs have satisfied the actual-case-or-controversy requirement here. Plaintiffs allege that the Town has adopted a new policy for maintenance and repair of legal trails. According to plaintiffs, this is the first time in the Town’s history that it has formally asserted authority to maintain and repair legal trails. The Town also established a process for private individuals to apply for and receive permission to exercise the Town’s authority to maintain and repair legal trails. Two of the Town’s four legal trails are on plaintiffs’ property. In sum, the Town has taken concrete steps manifesting its intent to enter onto plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of improving the trails. Assuming as we must for purposes of a motion to dismiss that these allegations are true, they demonstrate a sufficiently concrete threat of physical invasion and interference with plaintiffs’ asserted right to control who enters or alters their property.

Slip op. at 9. The court rejected the town's argument that someone needs to apply for a permit first before the claim becomes ripe:

This case similarly presents a justiciable claim because the Town has formally asserted that it has authority to enter onto plaintiffs’ land for the purpose of maintaining and repairing the legal trails and has created a procedure for implementing that authority, and plaintiffs assert that the Town has no legal authority to do so. This is a purely legal dispute that is appropriate for a declaratory judgment action, and resolution of this question will settle the dispute between the parties.

...

The Town argues that plaintiffs’ action is premature because no person has yet applied to maintain the trails on plaintiffs’ property. However, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the selectboard chair told them the Town planned to “sit on” the procedure until plaintiffs’ litigation was resolved. It is reasonable to infer from this statement that the Town fully intends to implement the new procedure and exercise its asserted right to maintain and repair trails once the litigation concludes. Moreover, the filing or granting of an application to exercise the Town’s asserted authority to maintain trails would not add any new dimension to the purely legal question presented by plaintiffs: whether the Town has that authority in the first place. Thus, the fact that no person has yet attempted to maintain the trails on plaintiffs’ property does not render this issue unripe.

Slip op. at 11-12.

And what about the town's claim that the plaintiffs were merely anticipating future action, and the court should wait (we wonder where the town got that argument from)? Nope:

We are also unpersuaded by the Town’s contention that plaintiffs’ feared injury is subject to "voluntary avoidance." The Town argues that plaintiffs have not alleged that anyone has applied to maintain the trails on their property and even if someone did, the Town would still have to review the application. This does not change the fact that the Town has asserted the right to enter, through its agents, onto plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of maintaining the trails. As discussed above, we can reasonably infer that the Town intends to implement its new procedure once this litigation concludes. There is no indication that the Town’s exercise of its asserted authority is contingent on any other actor or regulatory process. The situation here is therefore distinguishable from the cases cited by the Town, where the facts showed that the plaintiffs could avoid the threatened injury through their own avoidance or that the occurrence of the threatened injury depended on the uncertain actions of a third party.

Slip op. at 12.

Welcome to the fight! (Call us if you need an amicus brief down the road in support of your right to exclude and for compensation for a taking if the town keeps pressing.)

Echeverria v. Town of Tubridge, No. 23-AP-291 (Vt. Aug. 2, 2024)

A CFC Primer On Rails-to-Trails Takings

If you ever wanted a primer on the sometimes-confusing and seemingly arcane world of Rails-to-Trails takings cases, you would be hard-pressed to find a better example of the substantive law and the procedures in these cases than the Court of Federal Claims opinion in Nicholson v. United States , No. 23-843 (Mar. 13, 2024).

There's nothing particularly outrageous about this case, but that's one of the reasons why we appreciate the time that Judge Tapp put into the opinion (and the effort our colleagues Lindsay Brinton and Meghan Largent put into the case). 

Here's how the opinion starts off:

"There is a pleasure in the pathless woods[.]" Yet for the Hyatt and Nicholson Plaintiffs (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), that pleasure was replaced with the pain of usurped property rights. Tn its pursuit of public amenities, the United States transformed Plaintiffs’ land previously burdened by an unused railway into a different burden—a walking trail. Plaintiffs bring this rails-to-trails case contesting the United States’ action as an uncompensated taking.

The United States moves for summary judgment, primarily arguing that because compensation is not available to Plaintiffs, there can be no taking. (Hyatt Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18; Nicholson Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13 (collectively referred to as “Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J.”)). Plaintiffs cross-move for partial summary judgment as to liability, arguing that the United States’ action of changing the nature of an easement on their property effected a taking. (Hyatt Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19; Nicholson Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14 (collectively referred to as “Pls.’ Mot. for Part. Summ. J.”)). Plaintiffs further argue that the Court should clarify certain calculations relating to just compensation. (See generally Pls.’ Mot. for Part. Summ. J.). The Court disagrees; conclusions as to those calculations are inappropriate at this stage. Ultimately though, the Court agrees that the United States has taken Plaintiffs’ property for public use. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted-in-part and the United States’ Motion is denied. The quantum of compensation is premature and left for another day.

Slip op. at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).

Check it out.

Nicholson v. United States, No. 23-843 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 13, 2024)

Pass A Good Time: Our Report From The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans

When it comes to the longstanding ALI-CLE American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conferences, we're always ready to go. You know that. But this year's version -- the 41st -- was buzzing like no other in recent memory.

Maybe it was the New Orleans venue with its atmo, food, and music for our after-class activities, or even the timing (the second-to-last week on the Mardi Gras parade season, and our conference hotel was right on the routes). It might have been the nice weather (oh, it rained buckets one evening, but there wasn't an ice storm like we experienced in Austin in 2023). Or maybe it was the capacity crowd, and new topics and speakers on the agenda. Or maybe it was just the prospect of seeing our friends and colleagues again after a year.

Here's a photo essay of some of the Conference highlights.

And if you missed out, the webcast was recorded and is available for viewing. Or, better yet, hold on your calendar January 30 through February 1, 2025 for the 42d Conference, to be held at the Westin Bayside San Diego.

Excitement this way...

The view from the podium.
Say "hello" to our opening plenary session in wide-angle.

Prepping the space.
The finished stage that Conference attendees
see isn't how the room starts off.
It takes a lot of work by the ALI-CLE staff
to get the place camera-ready.

The live webcasting of the sessions also takes a lot of
set-up and a ton of equipment. This is just some of it. 

Here's more. 

The badges were arranged on the table with care...

...in trust that our faculty and registrants would soon be there.

No conference would be complete without swag.
Here is but a sampling.

As always, a huge thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.


The Conference site was right on the routes of several parades.
It was difficult to keep focusing on severance damages and larger parcel
when the music and excitement was just outside.
But we tried.


The opening plenary session -- on the U.S. Supreme Court's
big takings case -- got us off to a solid start.


Thanks to Christina Martin and Steve Silva for speaking
on Tyler v Hennepin County.

The view from the podium as Amy Boulris speaks about the most
significant eminent domain decisions of 2023.

The speakers are a mix of practicing lawyers, judges, other eminent domain
professionals, and legal academics. Here, two property scholars --
Timothy Harris and Jessica Asbridge --
discuss how state property law and state courts
can drive the constitutional issues.

Kinnon Williams, Esq. and Christina Thoreson, SR-WA, MAI, CRE 
present on "Valuation of Wasting Assets."

Lawprof Emilio Longoria and attorney Tony Francois
on "What Condemnation Lawyers Need to Understand
About the Clean Water Act After Sackett"
(hint: it goes to highest and best use).

Matthew Ackerman, Marianna Baggett, and Kenneth Haywood
on "The Pitfalls of Objectively Measured Just Compensation:
When Market Value Isn't Enough."

It was not all work and no play.
Again, a big thanks to our generous sponsors.

Our speakers take questions, of course.
We solicit them the old-fashioned way (thanks, James Masterman).

William and Mary Law School Professor
Emerita Lynda Butler (and her former student, North Carolina's
Jeremy Hopkins" discuss property rights in an age of coastal retreat.

Luis Gallardo-Rivera, Dana Berliner, and (off-camera)
Sophia Holley on "Proving and Defending Pretext,
Public Use, and Necessity."

James Masterman and Martye Kendrick on "Preparing Your Witness
to Overcome Obstacles to Highest and Best Use."

Jeff McCoy, Robert McNamara, and Kristen Renfro on
"Getting to Federal Court and Staying There:
Navigating Procedural Mazes in Federal Takings Claims."

Sean Metherell and Nathan Farris zero in on
"How to Win a Future Highest and Best Use Claim: Proving Reasonable
Probability of Rezoning and Other Issues."

Michael Berger is Watching You:
SCOTUS Property Rights Maven Michael Berger zooms in with his
annual "Regulatory Takings Update."

We always hold a spot for Jim Burling on Saturday.
Why? Because his tours-de-force always are interesting
and put people in seats, even on a Saturday morning.

More Big Michael.
Here, sharing his memories of Professor Gideon Kanner.

See you in San Diego!
January 30 - February 1, 2025
Westin San Diego Bayside

No FOMO: There's Still Room For You To Join Us In New Orleans Feb 1-3, 2024 For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference

Don't miss out!

We promise: this is the last time we're going to try to entice you to the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference in New Orleans. We are getting close to capacity, but there is still room. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin last year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration is still open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

CAFED: "Right of Way" For Railroad Shows Intent To Grant An Easement

The U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in Barlow v. United States, No. 22-1381 (Nov. 22, 2023), isn't a groundbreaking opinion on takings (although yes, it did reverse the Court of Federal Claims's dismissal of the property owner's rails-to-trails takings claim), but is still worth a quick read.

The major issue was whether, under Illinois property law, a grant of a "right of way" intended to grant a fee simple absolute estate to the grantee (as the United States argued, and the CFC held), or whether it was an easement. The Federal Circuit came down on the side of the latter, holding that although there is a presumption of a grant in fee, "that presumption was rebutted by other express words in the [grant]." Slip op. at 9.

The grant included the words "right of way" (which indicate an easement), but also other words and terms indicating an easement and not a grant in fee:

Outside the granting clause, other express words in the ROW Agreements also rebut the presumption. First, the ROW Agreements’ “RIGHT OF WAY” title demonstrates an intention to convey easements. See Penn Cent. Corp. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 512 N.E.2d 118, 120 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (explaining that deed entitled “Right of Way Deed” and referring to a right-of-way in the granting clause will be construed to convey an easement). Second, the “over or across” and “on or across” language in the ROW Agreements is consistent with the description of the right of way and shows an intent to convey an easement. See McVey, 427 N.E.2d at 217 (finding “over and through” language to indicate an easement); Diaz, 786 N.E.2d at 1042 (finding easement conveyed because “[c]onstruing [the] deed as creating a fee simple” would “render[] the terms‘over and through’ and ‘right-of-way’ meaningless”).

Slip op. at 10.

We think this one is worth your time, not so much for the analysis of Illinois easement law, but because it emphasizes the importance of framing the "private property" alleged to have been taken. Yes, in rails-to-trails litigation the "property" question is often dispositive (if this was a grant in fee, the plaintiffs would not have a reversionary interest once the right of way stopped being used for railroad purposes, and thus would have no "private property" that was taken by the feds' Notice of Interim Trail Use), but similar issues often lurk in other regulatory takings case.

Indeed, with the Supreme Court's recent focus on those "core" or "normative" property rights that are not solely defined by state law, the "what property?" issue is going to become even more important.

Barlow v. United States, No. 22-1381 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2023)

Here's The Program For The 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans

Here's the brochure and the full agenda and registration information for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference at the JW Marriott in New Orleans, February 1-3, 2024.

This is the long-running nationally-focused conference on all things eminent domain, takings, valuation, and related. We have three tracks, from which you can choose a la carte - Practice, Substantive, and Condemnation 101:

For over 40 years, we’ve been bringing eminent domain practitioners together to examine the latest issues, engage in healthy debate, and get the information they need to stay current in their practice. This year – our 41st – is THE perfect time to reunite with your eminent domain colleagues. There will be plentiful opportunities to meet and mingle with the faculty and other registrants – throughout the conference and at evening social events. Attendees come back year after year to make new friendships and renew longstanding ones – in a welcoming environment and amongst others who share the same passion for this area of the law.

Please check it out. Over the next couple of weeks we shall bring you details of the various programs.

If you have joined us in the past, you know what a worthwhile conference this is. If this will be your first time, welcome; we hope that you will become a long-term colleague.

Register now, and reserve your spot. In the past few years, we've sold out the hotel block and the Conference seats. So don't miss out!

2024 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference Brochure, Feb. 1-3, 2024, New Orleans,...

CAFED: Terms Of Granted Easement Allowed "Unlimited Reasonable Use," So No Taking For Railbanking

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in Stimson Lumber Co. v. United States, No. 22-1201 (Oct. 2, 2023) does not add a lot to the overall regulatory takings canon, but the court and the caption might give you a hint that this one is a Trails Act takings claim.

As is often the case in these type of cases, the dispositive issue is a question of state property law; here, whether railbanking is within the scope of the easement for a "right of way" which Stimson's predecessor-in-title granted. The court concluded that under Oregon law, this was a "general terms" easement, which allows "unlimited reasonable use," and was not limited to a right of way for railroad purposes. In short, the terms of the easement itself contemplated virtually any use.

We've been down this (rail)road before, as we noted in this amicus brief in a similar case involving the New York City High Line. So we're not going to dive much deeper into the issue, since it turns on the Federal Circuit's interpretation and application of Oregon's property law.

The court rejected the argument that -- come on, man -- an easement for a "right of way" to a railroad company kinda musta been for, you know, a railroad purpose. That might make a whole lot of sense, but it ain't the law, at least in Oregon. The court also rejected the argument that a grant of a "general" easement isn't really an easement at all, and that by definition, an easement is to use property for some specific use (a "general" easement is really a grant in fee simple). This was the argument our brief in the case linked above made (to no avail).

The court concluded that the easement thus has not been abandoned, and with no property interest having been transferred, there's no takings liability for the United States for allowing interim trail use.

We end on this note. What's the deal with the above clip from Buster Keaton's silent classic, "The General?" Although the picture -- set in the Civil War -- takes place in Georgia, it was shot in Oregon, including the famous train wreck scene (yes, Keaton really did crash a train into the river). 

Now that seems like a "railroad purpose."

Stimson Lumber Co. v. United States, No. 22-1201 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2023)

Green Backs And Land: Dr. Seuss (Thor Hearne) Explains Trails Act Takings

with apologies to Green Eggs and Ham

Our friend and colleague Thor Hearne (True North Law/Federal Takings blog) sent us this and when we asked, kindly consented to us sharing it with you.

Thor writes: "I was trying to explain to my granddaughters, ages six, three and four months what I do and the Trails Act cases where I represent property owners.  So, I wrote a Dr. Seuss summary of the Fifth Amendment and Trails Act takings."

Check this out:

Dr. Seuss Explains Trail Act Takings

In the land where you and I reside,
Private property's our joy and pride.
Everyone has a piece, maybe big, maybe small,
A place to hang your hat, a spot for a ball.

When government says, "Hey, we need your space!"
They must pay you, put a smile on your face.
Whether it's a farm, or a tree, or a pond,
They give you the dollars, of which you are fond.

But wait, what's this? A train's coming through!
An easement they need, to pass and to woo.
It's not quite your land, but not quite their place,
It's shared in a way, yet you both have a case.

When trains cease to chug, and the tracks fade away,
The owner says, "Yay! My land's back today!"
But if Uncle Sam says, "No, here we shall stand,"
He must open his purse, pay you for your land.

So, remember these words, in freedom we trust,
Private property's good; to respect it's a must.
Whether a home, or a field, or a bright yellow flower,
We each have our space, and in that lies our power.

ALI-CLE's Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Feb 1-3, 2024, New Orleans): Why Attend? Here's Why.

Why is it, you ask, that the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (scheduled next February 1-3, 2024, in New Orleans) is an event that seems to be growing in popularity and attendance. In recent years, we have standing room only in the Conference halls, and have sold out the hotel block. After all, this is a pretty niche area of law. So what gives?

When we were in Austin earlier this year, we thought it might be nice to try and answer that question. We asked Conference participants why they come, year-after-year (and in Austin, despite massive travel disruptions). Yes, it is the various venues (Nashville, Austin, Scottsdale, Palm Springs, to name a few recent locations), and yes, it is the excellent and useful programming.

But as we suspected it is more than that. As the above video notes, the consistent response from our participants about why the attend is the participants. The faculty and other attendees, the vendors. The collegiality, the chance to renew long-standing friendships, and especially the chance to make new friends and colleagues who share our passion for this area of law. The welcoming environment, and our desire to have lawyers and other professionals new to this area of law or new to the Bar feel at home and welcomed.

I can personally attest to that one, having been welcomed to a Conference long ago by Toby Brigham, who although he was one of the Chairs of the event, made it a point to notice that I was a new attendee, and to introduce me around to the "old hands."

We have also made a big effort in the last few years to include a range of professionals from various perspectives, including lawyers, legal academics, jurists, appraisers and MAIs, planners, right of way and relocation experts, and jury and trial consultants. Family members also welcome (there are a lot of "adjacent" social and networking events, and families are welcome as long as they don't mind a lot of "shop talk"). Our program is a mix of practical and substantive sessions.

We also have a special track on the first day of the Conference designed as a crash course in Eminent Domain law ("Condemnation 101"), which is a good place for an overview and introduction to the practice, or as a refresher course for those with more time under your belt.

In short, we try and make the Conference not just a place to learn the latest in eminent domain and related topics, but somewhere you can return to each year, and feel welcome.

So if you have not attended before, give us a try! We'd love to see you in New Orleans in just a few months. Registration and hotel reservation now open. Sign up now, and don't miss out.

Guest Post - Kady Valois, "How The West Was Won: Easements!"

Today's post is by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Kady Valois, writing about a recent Federal Circuit Rails-to-Trails takings case, Behrens v. United States, No. 22-1277 (Feb. 13, 2023).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How The West Was Won: Easements!

by Kady Valois

There’s a saying that the west was won by pioneers, settlers, and adventurers.

And while that may be somewhat accurate, what’s clearer still is that the west -- at least the west we know today -- was built and developed because of railroads. We owe a lot to railroads because this nation was built by the coal engines that carried steel, food, and people to areas never previously explored by Americans. Many of these railroads were built on easements or rights-of-way on private property, subject to the fee owner's reversionary interest: should the easement ever not be used for railway purposes, the property is supposed to revert to the landowner. 

And as with most things, technology advances and what once was cutting-edge or even common becomes outdated. So it seems with railroads. While they still serve a function, rail transportation is not as widespread as in decades or centuries past. But as rail lines are abandoned, in their stead has grown a movement to transform these former railway easements into public recreational trails. Congress even got behind the rails-to-trails movement, and adopted a statute that interferes with the state-law reversionary process.

Typically, when a railroad wishes to relinquish control over a railroad corridor, it must seek permission from the federal Surface Transportation Board to abandon the corridor. Interested parties may intervene and propose to "railbank" the corridor, that is, preserve it for future use. An intervenor must be willing "to assume full responsibility for [m]anaging the right-of-way; [a]ny legal liability arising out of the transfer of use of the right-of-way . . .; and [t]he payment of any and all taxes . . . [on] the right-of-way." See 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(a).

So let's say the STB agrees, and instead of reverting to the property owner, the easement is designated for use as a recreational trail. The courts have long concluded that the issuance by the STB of a Notice of Interim Trail Use results in a taking for which the United States is liable (after all, absent the federal Rails-to-Trails Act, the easement would have reverted to the owner, and for that, the owner is owed just compensation).

Much of the rails-to-trails litigation in the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit involve questions about the scope of the grant of these easements. After all, if the federal government can show that recreational trail use is not inconsistent with the terms of the original grant of easement, then voila! ... no reversion, no taking.

That was the dispute in Behrens. The Federal Circuit examined the abandonment of a 144.3-mile corridor previously used by the St. Louis, Kansas City, and Chicago Railroad Company in the 1900s. Here, unlike the usual situation, most of the deeds conveying the easements more than a century ago "did not state a limitation of the grant to use for railroad purposes." Slip op. at 5. The successor-in-interest to the railroad sought the STB's approval to discontinue service and consummate abandonment of the easement. NITU followed, as did an agreement for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to operate and maintain a recreational path on the easement. CFC takings claim followed.

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability, asserting that the railroad originally acquired mere easements, pursuant to Missouri law; that the railroad’s easements were limited to railroad purposes; and that the conversion of the easements for a public recreational trail was beyond the scope of easements, and thus constituted a taking. The government then cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that the deeds granted an easement broad enough to allow for interim trail use and railbanking.

Slip op. at 6-7.

The CFC held that under a Missouri easement statute, the easements contemplated interim trail uses and thus, no taking.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. The court started with the Missouri easement statute, which gives railroads power:

[t]o take and hold such voluntary grants of real estate and other property as shall be made to it to aid in the construction, maintenance and accommodation of its railroads; but the real estate received by voluntary grant shall be held and used for the purpose of such grant only....

Slip op. at 9.

The government pointed to the statute and argued that it does not define the scope of the granted easements, and the court needed to look for the intent of the grantor as evidenced by the language of the grant. Here, the government argued (as noted above), "the deeds themselves contain no language stating a limitation of the grant to a specified purpose." Slip op. at 10.

The Federal Circuit rejected that conclusion because the Missouri Constitution states that properties taken by a railroad by eminent domain are presumed taken "for railroad purposes." See slip op. at 11 (citing Mo. Const. art. I, § 26). The Court acknowledged that state limitation by finding that the property’s acquisition for anything other than railroad use would fall outside the scope of the recorded easement. Thus, the government’s attempt to use the now defunct railroad for an interim trail or rail bank was unconstitutional – which is this author’s opinion was the right conclusion.

The only question left was whether under Missouri property law, use as a recreational trail -- for such things as walking, hiking, cycling, picnicking, frisbee playing -- are railroad purposes. (What do they think this is, New York or something?) Short answer, no. Nor is railbanking:

Under Missouri law, establishing a nature trail for the purpose of keeping the corridor intact for future rail service is not considered a railroad purpose if there is no evidence that such future use is realistic. In Boyles, the court rejected the argument that “because one of the purposes of the trail is to keep the existing corridor intact for transportation needs that may occur in the future, such as reactivated rail service, [the easement’s] proposed use [as a trail] is for railroad purposes.” Boyles, 981 S.W.2d at 649. The Boyles court found that this argument “ha[d] no merit” because “[t]he undisputed evidence, including the removal of the bridges, ties, and rail by [the railroad company], showed that no such [future railroad] use is realistic.” Id. at 649–50. The court also noted that “[t]he proposed development of a hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, and nature trail is completely unrelated to the operation of a railway and consistent only with an intent to wholly and permanently cease railway operations.” Id. at 650 (citation omitted). Thus, in Missouri, trail use with the purported but speculative purpose of preserving the right-of-way for purported but speculative purpose of preserving the right-of-way for future railroad use does not fall within the scope of an easement ranted for railroad purposes. Here, there is no evidence that future rail use is realistic.

Slip op. at 12-13.

The court concluded by holding that "the easements granted to the railroad were not broad enough to encompass interim trail use or railbanking[.]" Slip op. at 16.

Reversed and remanded.

Behrens v. United States, No. 22-1277 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023)

Ice Ice Baby: A Report From The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

We were eagerly anticipating 40th American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. The 2022 Conference in Scottsdale was one of the first meetings where everyone was back in-person (and was a smashing success), but that conference was early in the game so not everyone could or would attend. But in the past year most of us got back to some semblance of "normal," and the turnout promised to be good.

We had record registrations: with over 300 attendees, faculty, and staff signed up, things were shaping up.

Plus, we were headed to Austin, Texas. The last time we held the Conference there in 2016, we loved it so much it has been in-demand for a return visit. And this year is the debut Conference for some new planning co-chairs for both the main tracks as well as the "Condemnation 101" tracks, so the buzz for the 2023 Austin Conference was building.

But then the weather reminded us that Mother Nature is often the boss. 

Very Icy Austin on Wednesday (Conference Eve).

On Tuesday, one day before the Conference was to get underway, the 2023 Central Texas Ice Storm blew in and things were gonna get (as they say) "challenging."

Austin Airport effectively shut down with few flights in or out. Planes and cancellations stacked up nationwide. And even for those nearby, slick icy roads, and seemingly everything was closed, from gas stations to hotels to restaurants. Widespread power outages. 

Were we ready with Plan B if people couldn't get on-site? Read on.

Unless you are already here or are driving,
you ain't getting to Austin via AUS any time soon, pard.

Even flying from sunny California was a problem.

Ticket agent: Austin flight cancelled. How about flying to Houston and then driving?

Me: Sure, that'll work. Just get me to Texas and I'll figure it out from there.

Improvise, adapt, overcome: planes, trains, and automobiles (and car rentals, and long-distance rideshares, and four-layovers-from-Boise flights). Jacksonville to Austin via Chicago and Nashville.

Although those of us who made it to Austin were receiving widespread reports of people delayed and rerouted, we had only a handful who said they would not be pressing forward to get here. 

When this is what greets you when you arrive
at your conference site...uh oh.

And yes, Austin was cold and icy. Most things shuttered and widespread loss of power. But the Conference venue was up and running, and throughout the day on Wednesday, faculty, staff, and attendees were showing up. Trickling in, but showing up or on the way.

When this is what you see at the United Airlines
luggage counter, you ask yourself:
Can I make my presentation in a t-shirt and sweats? (Yes!)

We had confidence, and were prepared
for everyone to get to Austin.

So the aforementioned Plan B went into effect. Agenda items shuffled from tomorrow to today because the speaker is here, now. One speaker in the room, one speaker remote. Our audience is full of experts ... say, Billy can you pinch-hit on this panel? Sure. One speaker remoting in from his (unexpected) hotel room in Phoenix and presenting, before he went to the airport in the afternoon to continue on to Austin.

And so forth. Our long-time ALI-CLE Program Attorney, Amy Weinberg (who was delayed out of Philadelphia) was working furiously behind the scenes doing a lot of juggling, updating, texting and calling, and making alternative arrangements. And the tech team from ALI-CLE was preparing for overload if needed.

Plan A: continue to set the room up, assuming everyone is here or on the
way, and we'll have most or all of our people in the room.

Our Planning Chairs were ready, even if not
all of us were actually there (yet).

Plan B: the ALI-CLE technical crew was prepared to livestream
and record the Conference if the weather made travel
to Austin impossible or infeasible.

The tech command center.

Before we go on, a big thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.

We're underway, with a pretty good crowd.

Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., and we're looking not too bad. A fair number of folks have pressed forward despite the weather and travel disruptions and are in the room. More report they are not tapping out, and are pressing onwards.

We have more viewers remote than we originally anticipated, but the tech is holding up.

Over the next couple of days, our lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals made their way to Austin.

The fact that folks who were experiencing some rather dramatic travel difficulties and delays (ask Jack about his late night Uber from Houston airport to Austin, or how our west coasters got re-routed all over creation), didn't quit but were determined to get to Austin told us something about why this Conference has been so successful over the decades.

It's more than great programming from the nation's experts. The Conference is also an essential venue to get acquainted with new colleagues and welcome them to the Dirt Law Bar, reconnect with long-time friends, and have a bit of fun together.

Most of the Conference attendees eventually made it, and very few (reasonably) threw in the towel and turned around for home. This was the 40th edition of the Conference, and we really know why it is one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs. This year's experience really drove home why we come, and why our attendees and faculty are so dedicated and committed, despite the sacrifices we make to attend or to present. 

Hybrid: Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen
remoting in while en-route via Phoenix, and
Baylor lawprof Jessica Asbridge on
"Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners
Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the
Takings and Just Compensation Clauses."


The "Condemnation 101" track was wildly popular
both with new members of the Eminent Domain Bar,
as well as old hands. Standing room only throughout the day.

We also had reports from the field that the remote viewing
was going well. Here's how we looked in the
mountains of North Carolina.

Let's not forget the substance of the Conference.
Lots of practical learning. Here's Hawaii's Mark Murakami
and Virginia's Steve Clarke on "Avoiding the Real Jeopardy:  
Structuring Eminent Domain Settlements."
And no, two-time Jeopardy! champion Steve did not
give answers in the form of a question.

Weather throughout Wednesday and Thursday was icy and nasty,
but towards the end of Thursday seemed to be clearing up.

Consequently, the view from the podium looked better and better
with more showing up and more reporting they were nearly there.

The programming at the Conference is traditionally
a mix of practical subjects and the more theoretical.
Here's one of the highlight latter programs,
Alan Ackerman (Michigan), Matthew Ackerman (also Michigan),
and Steve Davis (Missouri) on "What Does the Supreme Court
Mean When it Says Just Compensation is “Self-Executing?"

There's an ethics program, naturally, for those of us in jurisdictions
with mandatory CLE requirements. But we try and not do "typical"
(i.e., boring) ethics programs. Here's Sarah Kellner (Colorado) and
Shane Rayman (Ontario, CN) on "Ethics: Building Your Practice
by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Professionals."

An example of our practice-oriented programming: Tony DellaPelle
(New Jersey), Bernadette Duran-Brown (California), 
and Andrew Lines (Illinois) on "Preparing Your Expert
Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings:
Tools and Tips For Trial Lawyers." 

Andrew actually pretended he was far, far away for his "deposition"
when he was in fact one floor up from the Conference room.
Way to go all-in.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, we were able to avoid Austin's
icy roads and have our Mickelthwait barbecue
brought in for lunch. Was it well-received? See for yourself. Line
was through the lobby and nearly out the front door.

Thank you to Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock
for speaking on "Developing Property Right Issues in Texas,
Questions and Answers with Justice Jimmy Blacklock"
(interviewed by Justin Hodge (Texas)

It was not an echo-chamber either. Here, in a hotly-debated
session, Jeff Redfern (Virginia), Steve Silva (Nevada), and
Lawprof Emilio Longoria (St Mary's Law, Texas)
debate "When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking:
Police Power Takings."

Jeff, Steve, and Prof Longoria's session got everyone's blood pumping.

It wasn't all serious, and we had a bit of fun.
Like this after-hours live edition of the Eminent Domain & Right of Way
Clubhouse with Beth Smith (Wisconsin), Patrick McAllister (Indiana)
and some dude who was having a post-CLE session beer.

Some of our faculty are more formal and like to speak
standing at the lectern. Here, Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Houghton
(New Jersey) and Ben Stormes (Montana) on
"Avoiding Pitfalls When Trying a Penn Central Case:
Lessons From the Takings Trenches."

Others are less formal, and speak while sitting
(and wildly gesticulating to make sure you are paying attention).
Kristen Renfro (California), and some guy on
"Your Regulatory Takings Case is in Federal Court – Now What?"

By Friday morning, the Austin weather was looking up. Really up.
And we nearly had everyone in the room.
By hook or by crook, most everyone was there.

By Friday were were pretty much back to normal.
Nearly all faculty and all attendees in the room.
And thus we turned it over to our Saturday morning stalwarts,
starting with Jim Burling, here speaking about "The Many Theories of
Property - Do They Matter in Court?" (and Pufendorf)

No one wanted to miss Michael Berger's "Regulatory Takings Update"
on Saturday morning either.

When you can fill this many seats at a CLE conference on a
Saturday morning after two full days of programming,
you know your speakers are the
right ones (thank you Jim and Michael).

After Jim and Michael did their thing, we held our "National Forum,"
a moderated "open-mic" session where Conference attendees
take to the podium and speak about their case or issue,
or crowdsource a question. Here, Pacific Legal
Foundation's Kady Valois, speaking about
our firm's latest takings cert grant.

We were happy to announce that the 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain &
Land Valuation Litigation Conference will be held February 1-3, 2024,
at the JW Marriott in New Orleans.
Save the date!

Ivy Cadle (Georgia - Go Dawgs!) is already planning his trip to
#EminentDomain 2024 in New Orleans.
See you there, Ivy.

With the programming wrapped up, it was time for farewells
and thank yous. Here, four of our law students from William and Mary Law,
who took the time out of their schedules to make their way to
Austin for some real-world learning and networking.
Well done, new colleagues!

Even after the proceedings closed, there was more work to be done.
Here, the ALI-CLE Tech Team breaks it down, after successfully
guiding us through the past four days. They are a large part of the
reason why this Conference works so well (plus, they make the
speakers look really good on camera).

To those who joined us - in-person or on-line, thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year in New Orleans...

We'll see you in New Orleans for
#EminentDomain2024!
(Want to keep the conversation going in the
interim? Join the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
page on LinkedIn.)

(Nearly) Last Call: There's Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin

We really want you there...

One (nearly) last reminder that there's still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there's still space, although we are nearly full. So register now - don't delay any further! 

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses
  
• When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking: Police Power Takings

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• "Contraband": How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Preparing Your Expert Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings: Tools and Tips for Trial Lawyers

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• the Condemnation 101 program (a one-day course for those new to the practice, or for experienced practitioners wanting a refresher)
• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Here's The Program For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

Here it is, the official agenda and program for the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 2-4, 2023 (with a special event the evening of Wednesday, February 1, 2023 to entice you to arrive early).

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench: A View From the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Register now and hold your space. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity, and the conference hotel block. So don't delay. 

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Wrap-Up

The William and Mary Law School has posted David Morrill's summary of the recent Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

In addition to a full day of academic and practicing bar speakers on Friday, and the award banquet on Thursday evening, the Conference included two full days of student-oriented programming earlier in the week, where practicing land use and property rights spoke about their practices, the hot topics in the field, and how they ended up in this practice area. Every session was well attended, as the photos from the events show.

Check it out. And please join us at future Conferences!

Links From CRE's "Supreme Court Update: Is This Property's Moment?"

Here are the links to the cases and other materials that we mentioned (and some we didn't) earlier today at the Counselors of Real Estate's program on "Supreme Court Update: Is This Property's Moment?" Thank you to our colleagues at CRE for including us in the program.

I.  The evolving ground rules

• Takings cases can go to federal court:
  • Condemnation: PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (eminent domain and the 11th Amendment)
  • Inverse and regulatory: Knick v. Township of Scott (opening back up federal courts to takings claims).
• How you define the “property” taken is key:
  • Murr v. Wisconsin (the larger parcel issue, applied in regulatory takings cases).
  • Koontz (money as property ... and exactions).
  • Brandt (easements, vel non)
• The exclusion “stick” is really important:
  • Any distinction between “permanent” and “temporary” takings is a matter of valuation, not liability: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. 
  • Horne v. USDA (II) (California raisins and physical invasions)
  • Arkansas Game (physical invasions, again).
•  Remedies:
  • The remedy for a “taking” isn’t limited to just compensation: Horne v. USDA (I).
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (preliminary injunctions, diesel-electric submarines, and Pearl Harbor).

 II.  Issues on the horizon

• Compensation and timing:
  • what to do when the condemnor doesn’t promptly pay up?
  • what is the date of valuation?
• Ability of condemnor to define the taken property:
  • Is there an obligation to value severance damages?
  • Fee take vs easement.
  • Temporary vs permanent.
• Does the Constitution protect property’s use, or value? Police power or takings?
• Whither Yee and the future of the physical occupation rule.
• Are eviction moratoria “takings?”
• Can you really get to federal court and stay there?
• The undivided fee rule ... constitutional?

Here's The Full Speaker And Topic List For The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep 29-30, 2022)

By now, you know that the 19th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference is set for September 29-30, 2022, at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia (register here - space is limited - fee ranges from free to $195 - a bargain!). And you know that our colleague Jim Burling is this year's B-K Prize winner.

But now you know who is speaking at the Conference, and the topics: here's the full agenda. The list of speakers is too long to list here but check out these topics:

• Panel 1: The Importance of Property Rights: A Tribute to James S. Burling
• Panel 2: Reshaping the Framework Protecting Property Under the Roberts Court (that's the panel we're speaking on)
  
• Roundtable: Emerging Issues in Takings and Property Rights Litigation
• Panel 3: Choosing A Property Regime
• Panel 4: Property Rights in Times of Scarcity and Crisis

Who can resist these subjects? Plan on joining join us in September.

2022 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Speaker Panels

Fed Cir: Uniform Relocation Act Doesn't Authorize Fees For Pro Se Lawyering

In Haggart v. United States, No. 21-1660 (June 22, 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Uniform Relocation Act is like a lot of other fee-shifting statutes, and does not authorize attorneys fees for work performed by a lawyer if that lawyer is one of the litigants. Slip op. at 8 ("We see no sound reason to read the URA’s fee provision to authorize an attorney pro se litigant to receive attorney’s fees when 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other fee-shifting statutes do not.").

We're posting this here because the underlying case involves a rails-to-trails takings claim, and because we know you are interested in any decisions interpreting and applying the URA.

Haggart v. United States, No. 21-1660 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2022)

Rational Basis, My Butt! Taking For Bike Trail Isn't For "Conservation of Natural Resources"

Here's one we've been meaning to post for a while. In Bd. of Comm'rs of Mill Creek Park Metro Dist. v. Less, No. 20MA0074 (Apr. 14, 2022), the Ohio Court of Appeals held that the Park District lacked the authority to condemn Less's property for a bike path, which did not qualify under the authorizing statute as the "conservation of natural resources."

The District adopted a resolution to build a bike path on an old railroad right of way, a portion of which had already been constructed, and a resolution to acquire a perpetual easement. Ohio statues require the condemnor to provide written notice to the owner 30 days before filing of an eminent domain case. Ohio law also limits the power of agencies such as the District to take to property for forest reserves, and "the conservation of natural resources."

The owners objected to the taking, asserting that the District had not complied with the notice requirement, and that a taking for a bike path doesn't qualify as the preservation of natural resources. The owner sought summary judgment, but the trial court rejected the motion.

The court of appeals reversed and entered judgments in favor of the property owner. The court concluded that the District's taking of a bike path is beyond its statutory authority to take because a bike path isn't a forest reserve, nor is it the conservation of natural resources, even though under a very generous and deferential reading of the statute, a bike path kinda sorta could be the conservation of a natural resource. As the court noted:

The primary question, in our view, is whether the creation of bikeways or recreational trails, which are for public use, constitute the conservation of natural resources of the state, a purpose which is required under R.C. 1545.11 in order for a park district to appropriate private property for a park or parkway.

Slip op. at 22. Although the court acknowledged that an argument could be made that nearly anything might count as conservation of natural resources (Barista's note: this recalls the Berman "well-nigh conclusive" language), it adopted a much more sensible reading:

In our view, despite the reasoning set forth in both MacNAB and Snyder, characterizing essentially anything that serves the public and contributes to the health and welfare of the community as the “conservation of natural resources” is a bit of a stretch, especially when considering that the statutory grant of authority contained in R.C. 1545.11 should be strictly construed and it should be construed in favor of the property owner.

Slip op. at 26. A "bit of a stretch" indeed: because "the public need is speculative at best and the harm to the private property owners is great[,]" the court concluded the District lacked the authority to take. Slip op. at 28 ("Although the 2018 resolution is more elaborate, it is still devoid of any language tying the expansion of the bikeway to the general health and welfare of the public or the conservation of natural resources."). Throw in the rule of construction that eminent domain statutes are read liberally in favor of the property owner and against the taker, and you have the court's rationale. Having determined that the District could not take Less's property, the court considered the lack of notice argument moot.

In sum, the ruling on appeal terminated the case in favor of the property owner. Game over, with a very limited remand so the trial court can "carry this judgment into execution."

We think this is a good one for you to read, and recommend you check it out.

Bd. of Comm'rs of Mill Creek Park Metro. Dist. v. Less, No. 20MA0074 (Ohio App. Apr. 14, 2022)

2022 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Scottsdale: You Should Have Been There!

After a two-year absence in which we went remote, in the last week of last month (our usual spot on the calendar, between the playoffs and Super Bowl), we once again met in-person for the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

Approximately 200 lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals gathered in-person--yes, in-person--at the Scottsdale (Arizona) Resort at McCormick Ranch, to get reacquainted, learn stuff, and renew ties last made in-person in Nashville in 2020. In addition to the live attendance, we also welcomed about 50 remote colleagues, who joined the live webstream.

This was the 39th edition of the Conference, one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs.

To those who joined us - thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year...

Our 2022 Proof of Life Photo.

Every year, as we open the program, I take to the lectern for what I call my "proof of life" photo. Our Conference ends up in some really fun, exciting places. Nashville. Palm Springs. San Diego. Austin. San Francisco. Charleston. And I want to prove to the folks back in the office that yes, we really are in the room, learning stuff. And not out enjoying all that our venues have to offer (we save that for after-hours).

In this photo, we're in the room, spread out (the Resort put us in its massive ballroom, so we had room to spare).

Thank you to our sponsors. Without your generosity, the Conference would not be as good as it is.

Lawprof Karen Bradshaw presented our keynote address on Friday, "Do Animals Have Property Rights?" with more from her recent book "Wildlife as Property Owners." Her talk was followed by a book signing, too. Interesting stuff for sure.

Our main room was nicely filled for every program. A real testament to the subjects discussed, and the quality of the faculty.

The program includes a mix of practice and substantive topics. Here, Virginia's Steve Clarke in one of the breakout rooms (also nicely filled), presenting on "Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge – How To Prepare."

But it wasn't all eminent domain, property, and CLE credits. Naturally, with the beautiful Arizona winter weather, we found time to get out-of-doors and do things. Like this intra-firm golf tournament.

Which firm prevailed? You'll have to ask them who has the bragging rights.

What was especially nice was that our sponsor tables and the ALI-CLE registration table could be outside of the presentation rooms. Love that AZ weather.

New Jersey's Tony Della Pelle and Connecticut's Dwight Merriam on "COVID-19 Takings."

Our faculty includes not only lawyers and law professors. We also have other industry professionals come and present. Here, Washington's Martyn Daniel, Texas' Kristen Bennett, and (lawyer) Alan Ackerman from Michigan speaking about "Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness."

Ah, ethics. A tough subject to cover. Especially at 8am. But Georgia's Ivy Cadle (with the obligatory "go dawgs!"), Michigan's Darius Dynkowski, and (off-screen) Virginia's Kelly Sheeran and Texas' Justin Hodge filled the room with "Ethics Jeopardy! Live."

Yeah, Justin really did go for the end zone for his role as Ethics Jeopardy! host.

We understood the situation. Our faculty, staff, and attendees came to Arizona from around the nation. Some places have opened up, others are still getting there. We minimized any risks. Spread out in a huge room, and everyone was pretty cool with the modest requirements from ALI-CLE. What was especially good was that nearly every event but the actual programming were outside. 

Another featured panel was on the Supreme Court's big decision in Cedar Point Nursery. We brought together three expert perspectives on the case and what it means for the future. "Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction for Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?" featured California's Joshua Thompson (prevailing counsel in the case), U. Virginia lawprof Julia Mahoney, and (off-camera, since he remoted in) Maryland's Matthew Littleton, who filed a government-side amicus brief in the case.

Also pictured: the moderator, some guy who writes a blog.

Colorado's Katie Gray and Nebraska's Bill Blake on "Project Abandonment: How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built." Really useful.

Tag swag (aka badge flair) courtesy of our Platinum sponsor.

Our two fave tags.

Outdoors at night - really nice under the lights by the fire, after a long day of CLE programming.

Hawaii's Mark Murakami teamed with Wisconsin's Smitha Chintamaneni for "Why Jurisdictional Offers Must Include an Assessment of Severance Damages."

Even our final programs each day attracted a substantial crowd, often tough to do after long days of sitting in class. A testament to the strength of the faculty and the topics. Here's the audience for "Defending the Appraisal in the Courtroom - The Insider's View."

We put speakers with competing views on these panels, to get the blood pumping and keep everyone's attention.

Saturday morning, after two full days of (great) programming, is still a tough spot for a speaker, because they have to keep us focused, and interested.

That's why we always reserve these spots for two old hands, who will keep us zeroed in. Above is California's Jim Burling, with a tour-de-force solo hour on "What Are the Top 20 Ways to Increase the Cost of Housing? The Answer May Surprise You!"

Below, Michael Berger (looking a bit like Big Brother, admittedly), who remoted in from California with his annual "Regulatory Takings Update."

Feral cats and property rights had us smiling (ask Michael about what this refers to).

Michael Berger is Watching You.

A group photo of the William and Mary Law School contingent at the Conference (minus two other WM Law colleagues who could not be there for the photo). Recent and long-time alumni, current law students, a law prof, and (fourth from left) Jim Burling who later this year will be awarded WM Law's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at the B-K Conference in September 2022.

A pretty good showing for the alma mater.

There was a whole lot of podcasting going on. Thanks, Infrastructure Junkies and Eminent Domain Podcast. Can't wait for the episodes you recorded.

Again, thank you sponsors!

What about next year? Usually, on the last day of a Conference, we announce the dates and the venue for the following year. This year, due to some slowdowns, ALI-CLE couldn't quite get all the requirements in place to make a formal, official announcement. As soon as we know the venue, we'll go loud here.

As for the date: same date as usual - last week of January or first week of February, depending on the football schedule (which we're trying to avoid).

Stay tuned.

 

CAFED: There's Right Way And A Wrong Way To Convey A Right Of Way (Under Texas Law)

A quick one from the Federal Circuit, in a rails-to-trails takings case.

The holding of the court in Anderson v. United States, No. 21-1445 (Jan. 20, 2022) (when a deed says it conveys "land," under [Texas law, that is a grant of fee simple), isn't all that groundbreaking. But the opinion contains a concise summary of rails-to-trails takings cases, and for that alone is worth a couple minutes of your time. See slip op. at 2-3.

The first step in a takings case, of course, is to identify the private property allegedly being taken. If the original right-of-way conveyance to the railroad by the plaintiffs' predecessor was limited (such as an easement), and the plaintiffs possess the "reversionary" right when the right-of-way ceases to be used for a railroad purpose, then pow!, the designation of the property as a recreational trail is a taking of that interest. If the original conveyance was of a fee simple interest, however, then no property to revert = no taking.

The court's conclusion on this question hinged on how Texas law treats deed language. Here, the 1902 deed conveying the right-of-way said, among other things, that the land was conveyed "for a right of way," and described the interest elsewhere as a "right of way." But the deed also started off with this language that described the grant as being "all that piece or parcel of land ..." See slip op. at 4-5.

So how does Texas law treat what looks like contradictory -- or at least ambiguous -- language in a deed? What interest was conveyed? The Federal Circuit noted that the Texas Supreme Court had already resolved that question back in 1952, where the Texas court concluded that similar language conveyed a fee simple interest. "The land" means a fee, while use of "right of way" is an easement - and you look to the granting clause for the controlling language. So when the deed here said "[t]hat we [the grantors] . . . do grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said Texas Central Railroad Company all that piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of McLennan, State of Texas ..." then it doesn't matter that later in the same deed, the property is described as a "right of way."

The Federal Circuit rejected the owners' argument that the 1952 Texas case relied upon by the Federal Circuit was out of date, and that in 2017 a Texas appellate court concluded otherwise. Slip op. at 9. In that case, the deed language was not the same as here, and the granting clause was even more ambiguous. Finally, the Federal Circuit also rejected the owners' arguments that the deed here expressly conveyed certain mineral interests, a recitation that would be unnecessary if the grant was intended to convey a fee simple absolute ownership in the railroad. The court noted that Texas cases have dealt with this same issue previously, and came down on the side of a fee simple conveyance. Slip op. at 10.

So summary judgment affirmed, plaintiffs lose. But they might take comfort that they couldn't have done much to change the outcome. Last we checked, it's impossible to go back in time and rewrite a deed to make it very clear that all that was granted was an easement.

What's the lesson for today, 120 years later? When drafting your deeds, choose your words carefully.

Anderson v. United States, No. 21-1445 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2022)

2021 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Sep. 30 - Oct. 1, 2021) - Still Time To Join Us

There's still plenty of time to register and join us for the 18th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School, Thursday and Friday, September 30 and October 1, 2021.

Yes, you may attend in-person, or remotely. The registration fees are very reasonable, ranging from $0 (yes, free!) to $200 (go here, and click "Tickets" for the details).

This year's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize winner is Professor Vicki Been (NYU Law). The Conference includes presentations on:

• Remembering Toby Brigham
• The Role of Empirical Research in Defining the Scope of Constitutionally Protected Property Rights: A Tribute to Been
• The Relationship between Eminent Domain and Social and Racial Injustice (this is the panel on which we'll be presenting)
• Just Compensation Issues, Changing Public Uses, and Other Recent Developments
• The Interdependence of Property and First Amendment Rights
• The Distributional Implications of Land Use Regulation

Details on the agenda and the stellar faculty here.

In our opinion, this is the best one-day academy/bench/practicing bar conference on this topic. Really good stuff.

Register here. We'd love to see you in Williamsburg later this month. Or if that's not possible, join us for all or part of the day remotely.

XXXX

Registration Open Now: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022, Scottsdale

All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:

• Keynote: Do Animals Have Property Rights?
• Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
• Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
• Challenging Public Use: Lessons From a 67-Day Trial
• COVID Takings
• Property Rights as Civil Rights
• Eminent Domain National Update
• Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge: How to Prepare
• How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built
• Rural Broadband and the Emerging Constitutional Challenges
• Are Precondemnation Entry Statutes Still Valid After Cedar Point Nursery?
• How Condemnor and Property Owners' Counsel Prepare the Battlefield
• How Will the Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Bill Impact Your Practice?
• Ethics
• ...and more, including a full slate of networking and social events!

We've sold out the last few years, so don't miss out. Room block now taking reservations. Registration and agenda information here.

Join us in Scottsdale in January!

Join Us For The 39th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022 (Scottsdale, AZ)

All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:

• Property Rights as Civil Rights
• Eminent Domain National Update
• Just Relocation: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
• Challenging Public Use: Lessons From a 67-Day Trial
• COVID Takings
• Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge: How to Prepare
• Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
• How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don't Get Built
• Rural Broadband and the Emerging Constitutional Challenges
• Are Precondemnation Entry Statutes Still Valid After Cedar Point Nursery?
• How Condemnor and Property Owners' Counsel Prepare the Battlefield
• How Will the Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Bill Impact Your Practice?
• Ethics
• ...and more, including a full slate of networking and social events!

We've sold out the last few years, so don't miss out. Room block now taking reservations. Registration and agenda information here.

Join us in Scottsdale in January!

New Cert Petition: Does the National Trails System Act "create a massive takings scheme?"

Here's the cert petition, recently filed, which asks the following Questions Presented:

Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Terminal Railroad formerly had the right to operate a portion of rail line subject to a conditional easement over a portion of Petitioner’s property. The easement terminated according to its terms. Nevertheless, Chicago Terminal Railroad entered into an agreement with the City of Chicago to receive compensation for the terminated easement pursuant to The National Trails System Act. There is an irreconcilable split between state courts regarding whether the Surface Transportation Board can convert an expired easement by compensating the railroad, which holds no valid title, for access to create a recreational trail, a purpose not permitted by the easement’s terms.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq., precludes state courts from resolving, for purposes of state property law, competing claims to property rights.

2. Whether Congress intended to create a massive takings scheme when it enacted the National Trails System Act.

The petition makes two claims.

First, that there's a split of state court authority on whether a state's property law has bearing in these kind of cases. Alabama says yes, Illinois says no - it's all up to federal law where rail is concerned.

Second:

Though the STB, in conjunction with the Court of Federal Claims, has developed a massive inverse condemnation regime, there is no indication that Congress actually contemplated or authorized it. While the Preseault Court held that the availability of just compensation under the Tucker Act prevented the Trails Act from violating the Fifth Amendment, the availability of damages under the Tucker Act does not evidence the intent of Congress. There is no evidence that Congress ever intended the National Trails system Act to become an extensive expensive takings program.

Rather, it should require clear and unambiguous congressional authorization. Cf. Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2180 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“This ‘sue me’ approach to the Takings Clause is untenable.”). This Court should consider whether the current takings program, encroaching on the property rights of landowners throughout the country, costing tax-payers hundreds of millions of dollars should simply be assumed as intended by Congress.

Pet. at 14-15. 

Follow along on the Court's docket here.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Burgoyne, LLC v. Chicago Terminal Railroad Co., No. 20-1235 (Mar. 1, 2021)...

Still Time To Join Us: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Online!) This Thursday & Friday. Tuition Deals! #EminentDomain2021

Yes, it starts tomorrow, Thursday, January 28, 2021, but we're "remote" this year, so it is not too late to register to join us for the 38th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference. This is the "big one" where the nation's best practitioners, scholars, jurists, and other industry professionals gather to talk shop about the subjects we know and love.

Details here (ALI-CLE's page with faculty, agenda, and times), or here (a recent episode of Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, where we preview the Conference). Here's your chance to be a part of what is the best conference on these topics.

We have set it up to take advantage of the remote format, and tuition has been reduced (thank you to ALI-CLE for recognizing this, and for our sponsors for being so generous). We're seeing a lot of first-time registrations, and this is a great opportunity to give us a test drive if you've always thought about attending, but never wanted to spend 4 days away from the office to do so.

A long-timer coming back? Look for the special deal which includes a discount on the 2022 conference.

We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," and "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims."

Your 2021 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan 28-29, Remote) BINGO Card

If you "get" this, you should be registered for the 38th Annual Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held remotely on Thursday and Friday, January 28-29, 2021.

The list is growing rapidly, and you need to join us!

This is the "big one" where the nation's best practitioners, scholars, jurists, and other industry professionals gather to talk shop about the subjects we know and love. We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," and "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims."

Details here (ALI-CLE's page with faculty, agenda, and times), or here (the latest episode of Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, where we preview the Conference). Here's your chance to be a part of what is the best conference on these topics.

Always wanted to join in, but didn't like the travel? Here's your chance to try us out with reduced tuition. A long-timer coming back? Look for the special deal which includes a discount on the 2022 conference.

Law Students: Register Free For The 38th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan 28-29, 2021)

Are you a law student interested in takings, eminent domain, land use, environmental, and other dirt-lawyering related topics? If so, good news: thanks to the generosity of ALI-CLE, you can register gratis (free!) for the upcoming 38th Annual Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held remotely on Thursday and Friday, January 28-29, 2021.

This is the "big one" where the nation's best practitioners, scholars, jurists, and other industry professionals gather to talk shop about the subjects we know and love. We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," and "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims."

Details here (ALI-CLE's page with faculty, agenda, and times), or here (the latest episode of Clint Schumacher's Eminent Domain Podcast, where we preview the Conference). Here's your chance to be a part of what is the best conference on these topics, risk-free. 

To register or to find out more, email me.

Eminent Domain Podcast's Preview Of The Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference

Our thanks to Clint Schumacher for having us on his program to talk about the upcoming Conference. We're "remote" this year, but that means a different approach to our presentations (and a very modest tuition!).

We're having programs with intriguing subjects such as "Planning to Win: Practical Strategies for a Successful Inverse Condemnation Case," "How Do I Keep My Firm’s Doors Open When the Courthouse Doors Are Closed? Making Your Practice More Efficient When You Can’t Try Cases," "Where Is the Supreme Court Headed on Takings Cases? Regulatory Takings Update and Cedar Point Preview," "No Show and All Tell: Breaking News in Property Rights and Takings," "More Than the Fifth Amendment: Other Tools for Upholding Property Rights," "Evaluating Lockdown, Moratorium, and Emergency Claims," and more (including Ethics for those of you in MCLE jurisdictions). We'll have a post with more details. 

Register now!

Fed Cir: No Taking, Because Oregon Property Law Is Clear (But Is It?)

A short (unpublished) one from the Federal Circuit, Albright v. United States, No. 19-2078 (Dec. 1, 2020).

This rails-to-trails takings case turned on the predicate question: do the plaintiffs own private property? That question turned on the lex loci, and whether, under Oregon law, the original right-of-way conveyance meant to grant to the railroad an easement or a fee simple interest. 

Thus, the opinion naturally relies solely on Oregon's property law: if the grant was for a limited purpose ("right of way" or "railroad"), then it was an easement; if the grant did not specify the use or was otherwise unlimited, it was a conveyance of fee simple. That was enough for the federal court:

In addition, none of the deeds provide for a reverter or otherwise contain language limiting the use that the grantee could make of the land. To the contrary, each of the deeds purport to convey land to the grantee and “to its successors and assigns forever.”

. . . .

In sum, like the granting clause at issue in Bouche, the granting clauses in all the deeds at issue here plainly purport to convey real property. And the deeds state that the property is conveyed to the grantee and its successors and assigns “forever.” The granting clauses do not purport to convey an easement, a right of way, or something else that would indicate an intent to convey an easement, such as property for specific purposes like the deed at issue in Bernards. Nor do the deeds provide for reverter or otherwise limit the uses the grantee can make of the land. These observations strongly support the conclusion that the deeds transferred fee simple absolute title to the land. See Bouche, 293 P.2d at 209–10; Bernards, 248 P.2d at 342–44.

Slip op. at 13-14 (footnotes omitted).

The only question we really have is would an Oregon court have a different view? We're guessing that Oregon property law isn't as cut-and-dried as four federal judges (none of whom were lawyers in Oregon) believe it to be.

Albright v. United States, No. 19-2078 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2020) (unpub.)

Your 2020 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Bingo Card

There's Still Room: Join Us For The 17th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Online, Free!)

Although it is set to launch this Friday, October 2, 2020, there's still more than enough time to register (and room at the inn) for you to join us for the 17th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.

Like everything else this season, the Conference is online (register here), and although we would have preferred to gather in-person of course, the online format has some advantages: the number of attendees isn't limited by the classroom size (this year's registrations are at record levels), you don't need to travel to Williamsburg, and the Conference is free if you don't want Virginia CLE credit for attending. What a deal.

In our opinion, this is the best legal academy/practicing bar conference on property law. This year, the Conference honors the Brigham-Kanner Prizewinner, Harvard Law School Professor Henry Smith.

Here are the panel topics (complete program agenda here):

• Where Theory Meets Practice: A Tribute to Professor Henry E. Smith Recipient, 2020 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize
• The Housing Crisis
• Roundtable: Emerging Issues in Takings and Eminent Domain Law
• The Reach of Government’s Confiscatory Powers Over Exigencies and Emergencies
• The Risk of Unjust Compensation

Speakers include Professor Smith and past Prize winners, prominent members of the practicing property bar, and property scholars. The complete list is posted here.

Come, join us without even leaving home (or the office)! Register here. Did we mention the tuition is FREE?

A Not Too "Takey" Takings Opinion From The Federal Circuit

It was mostly a win for the property owners in today's Federal Circuit opinion in Hardy v. United States, No. 19-1793 (July 15, 2020).

The opinion isn't heavy on the takings doctrine. It spent most of the time affirming the Court of Federal Claims' conclusion that the plaintiff-owners owned property under Georgia law (their predecessors had conveyed easements, not fee simple interests, and thus maybe had their reversionary interests taken when, after the rails were abandoned, they were converted to trails use).

Check it out for the nuances of Georgia property law. Is this an easement, a fee, a right-of-way, or something else? Whatever the feds wanted them to be, the court agreed with the owners that Georgia said they were easements. And we know who defines property, mostly, for purposes of the takings clause in this case: Georgia.

The balance of the opinion was more of a draw, with the court vacating the CFC's judgment and remanding the case. Not because there was something wrong with the CFC's conclusion, but because the feds raised an issue on appeal that apparently had not been covered below, and the CFC's judgment was rendered before the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Caquelin v. United States, 959 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. May 29, 2020). That case reaffirmed the long-standing Federal Circuit rule that the issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use is the "taking" in a rails-to-trails case, and also set out in more detail how that test should be applied.

In Hardy, the federal government asserted that the railroad never intended to abandon certain portions of the rail lines. Thus, no taking for those parts. The plaintiffs, naturally, disputed that. But you know what appellate courts do when confronted with new authority (Caquelin), and an undeveloped factual record: remand for more factfinding:

Because the briefing and argument before this court did not sufficiently focus on whether or when the Railroad would have abandoned its easements for land east of mile-post E-65.80 absent the NITU, we decline to address this issue on the merits in the first instance. Accordingly, we vacate the Court of Federal Claims’ decision that issuance of the NITU effected a physical taking of land east of mile-post E-65.80 and remand for further proceedings on the questions of whether and when the Railroad would have abandoned the portion of its rail line east of milepost E-65.80 absent the August 2013 NITU.

Slip op. at 18.

Not a complete win for the property owners. But often in our world, you can count as living to fight another day as a win. We think this counts as a win. 

Hardy v. United States, No. 19-1793 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 2020)

Federal Circuit: Arkansas Game Did Not Overrule Ladd (NITUs Are Categorical Takings)

Congratulations - if you understood this post's headline, you are officially a rails-to-trails nerd. A super-nerd.

But even if not, you shouldn't need a rails-to-trails nerd's level of knowledge to understand and appreciate the Federal Circuit's ruling in Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (May 29, 2020). It's a case worth reading for all of us -- nonnerds included -- because it nicely gets into the weeds of takings doctrine. 

One observation before we begin. There are takings of a fee simple interest. Takings of less-than-a-fee interest, such as the taking of an easement. Partial takings where less than all of the owner's property is taken, and there's a remainder property. Temporal takings where the seizure is not forever (temporary takings vs permanent takings). Regulatory takings, inverse condemnations, per se (categorical) takings, physical takings and ad hoc (Penn Central) takings. And myriad combinations fo the above. Takings theory comes in a lot of flavors. We note this only because in reading the court's opinion, those distinctions need to be kept in mind, or else you may find yourself losing the script.

Caquelin started off as your somewhat typical rails-to-trails case. Unused railroad on an easement through Caquelin's land. Railroad asked the Surface Transportation Board for its OK to abandon the line, subject to the fictional assertion that the abandonment isn't forever, just until such time as the need for rail service kicks back in. In the interim, we're OK with using the easement for non-railroady things like a recreational trail. If a trail sponsor steps forward, the STB issues a Notice of Interim Trail Use, which gives the parties 6 months to figure out if they can make it work. If the parties agree, then the former railbed becomes a recreational trail, with the STB retaining jurisdiction. Critically, reversion of the rail's right of way under state law is thwarted. Normally, when an easement owner stops the use, the easement reverts to the owner of the servient estate. Federal law preventing that from happening is a permanent taking of the reversionary interest.

So far so good. In these cases, the taking occurs (and the statute of limitations begins running) when the STB issues the NITU, which is the operative act interfering with the owner's reversion under state property law. But what if the rail and the trail sponsor never reach an agreement to operate a trail? In that case, the taking is merely temporary, not "permanent." That's what happened in Caquelin. The CFC, consistent with existing Federal Circuit precedent (Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010)), held that this was a temporary categorical taking. In other words, a total wipeout of the entire reversionary interest for a limited period of time. The CFC entered summary judgment on liability for the landowner. Compensation? Everyone agreed: $900.

In response -- and backed up against its own goal line -- the federal government went for the end zone. It argued that Ladd and two other long-standing takings precedents -- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) -- should be overruled. All over $900. These kind of temporary suspension of the reversionary interest should not be treated as a total wipout for a limited time, but rather as an ad hoc loss-of-use-and-other-factors Penn Central taking, or maybe under the Arkansas Game temporary takings multifactor analysis. On remand after an appeal to the Federal Circuit, the CFC applied the Arkansas Game factors, but still concluded it was a total, but temporary, wipeout of the reversionary interest.

The federal government presented two main arguments on appeal:

The government accepts that the trial court’s judgment is supported by Ladd I, but it renews its two arguments that this court should no longer adhere to Ladd I. First, it contends, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tahoe-Sierra requires that the general regulatory-takings analysis of Penn Central be applied to assess whether a NITU is a taking when no trail-use agreement has been reached before it expires, and that such a NITU should not be treated as a categorical taking. Second, it contends, at a minimum we should replace the categorical approach with the multi-factor approach of Arkansas Game—which shares certain features of the Penn Central analysis.

Slip op. at 10. The Federal Circuit rejected both contentions.

First, it held that Ladd was not inconsistent with Arkansas Game. A NITU allows a physical invasion of the property. Slip op. at 11 ("The government seems to accept, and in any event has not meaningfully contradicted, the foregoing characterization of the NITU as allowing occupation by someone other than the landowner.") (footnote omitted). That's an "easement," after all. Wiping out -- even temporarily -- my right occupy my land is a taking of my right to exclude. All of it. And that is Ladd and Caldwell and Barclay. This isn't some case where a regulation temporarily restricts the use of property as in Tahoe-Sierra, but a physical (categorical) taking where the "character of the government action" (to use Penn Central's terminology) is categorically a taking. Slip op. at 14 ("Neither in Tahoe-Sierra nor any other case cited by the government did the Court treat as a “regulation” subject to the Penn Central standard a government action aimed only at securing a coerced easement for others to use the landowner’s land.").

Second, Arkansas Game, the Federal Circuit concluded, rejected "categorical exemptions from Takings Clause liability[.]" Slip op. at 15 (emphasis original). This case involves " mandated continuation of an easement," and not merely regulating the owner's use of land. In other words, the Federal Circuit viewed the NITU as allowing a physical occupation, and under the same analysis where a physical invasion is of such an invasive character under Penn Central that it is a taking without examination of the economic harm or the owner's expectations, here too. Slip op. at 15-16. Besides, the CFC here did walk through the Arkansas Game factors, which the Federal Circuit held, are pretty much baked into the Ladd analysis.

All right. Lots of jargon there, but you get the drift: Ladd is still good, a NITU is a categorical taking of either a temporary or permanent duration.

Finally, the court warmed to the government's argument that there's no taking if the railroad would not have abandoned the rail line:

It suggests that a taking should not be found to have occurred during the period a NITU is in effect if, even in the absence of the NITU, the railroad would not have abandoned its rail line during that period.

Slip op. at 17. In other words, the owner would have lost the property anyway, even in the absence of government action. You know, "causation."  The court concluded that neither Ladd, Caldwell, nor Barclay addressed that question directly, but that the usual rules of causation in takings still applies. Slip op. at 21 ("We conclude, therefore, that there is no taking until the time as of which, had there been no NITU, the railroad would have abandoned the rail line, causing termination of the easement that the NITU continued by law."). Applying that principle, the court held that to government had not shown that the railroad would on its own delayed abandonment.

Check the opinion out. It is worth reading, even if you are not a super-takings-rails-to-trails nerd.

Caquelin v. United States, No. 19-1385 (Fed. Cir. May 29, 2020)

Still Time To Join Us (Tomorrow): ALI-CLE Webinar - Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases

There's still time to join us tomorrow, Friday, April 24, 2020 at 2-3pm Eastern Time, they will be presenting "Strategies for Litigating Regulatory Taking Cases" in a webinar produced by ALI-CLE. Register here (multiple attendee discounts available). 

At the recent ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Nashville, our colleagues, New York's Jon Houghton and Hawaii's Dave Day presented a very informative program on litigating regulatory takings cases. Jon is a property owner-side lawyer, while Dave is a Deputy Attorney General who represents the State of Hawaii in such cases. So it was a practical and balanced presentation. Jon and Dave are taking it to the next level. This isn't simply a repeat of their Nashville program, but they will be exploring in more detail the practicalities of building and defending these difficult cases. 

Here's the description of the program:

The U.S. Constitution provides that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. When a government regulation substantially reduces or eliminates the value of property, a regulatory taking claim may be present. To successfully litigate one of these cases, it is essential to have a firm understanding of the different tests courts may apply to determine if a taking has occurred, how to compute fair compensation, and what evidence must be presented to support or defend both. If you are or may be involved in a regulatory taking case, set aside one hour to learn strategies from government and landowner attorneys, and benefit from the differing perspectives on litigating these types of claims from both sides of the aisle.

This webcast will present a unique look behind the curtain at how the two opposing sides approach prosecuting and defending a regulatory taking claim. Discussions will address building a case, using experts, potential motions practice, and trial strategy. Specific topics include: 

• Litigating a Lucas claim
• Loss of economically beneficial uses
• Complete elimination of value
• Litigating a Penn Central claim
• Distinct investment-backed expectations and the economic impact of the regulation
• Character of the government action
• Background principles
• Establishing the Murr factors
• Just compensation and appraisals

More details on the program, including registration information here. 

See you online tomorrow. 

Unboxing The 2021 (Scottsdale) ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference Swag: Get Yours Today!

Missed out on the 2021 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference swag?

Well fear not: here's your chance to get your high-class reminder -- a kit of road warrior essentials -- to save the Conference date on your calendar. We're already underway with planning the agenda and faculty, so it's never too soon to block it off (January 28-30, 2021, at the 4-Diamond DoubleTree Resort, Scottsdale, Arizona). 

If you were not able to get your swag in Nashville, send us a note ([email protected]) and we shall gladly drop one or two in the mail to you.

While supplies last!  

Federal Circuit: When Road Is The Property Boundary, Owner's Fee Goes Up To The "Centerline"

They're coming so fast, we can hardly keep up.

Today, in Castillo v. United States, No. 19-1158 (Feb. 20, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolved a common issue in rails-to-trails takings cases: when a property owner holds title and her deed describes the land as bordering on a railroad line or other easement (or the property is described as a lot in a plat that shows the lot’s “property line” as adjoining a road or railroad easement), does the owner of the adjoining fee estate own the fee interest up to the "centerline" of the right of way?

Applying Florida property law, the court held yes, there is a presumption that the owner's title goes up to the "centerline." The court reversed the Court of Federal Claims's conclusion that the presumption did not apply, and that deeds describing the property as a “less and except” a right-of-way, do not convey title to the fee estate in the land under the right-of-way. Although this case was resolved by applying Florida law, the centerline presumption is present in nearly every other state's property law, and the argument is frequently made by the Government in rails-to-trails cases nationwide that the owner's property stops at the edge of the road. The Federal Circuit's opinion noted that the centerline presumption is a doctrine in every state and has been long a fundamental doctrine of property law the Supreme Court has long recognized.

Congratulations to colleagues Meghan Largent, Thor Hearne, and Stephen Davis for the win. Check it out. 

Castillo v. United States, No. 19-1158 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2020) 

Record Attendance (But There's Still Time For You Last-Minute Filers) At Nashville ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference

Picture 1: how normal people see pie.

Picture 2: how you see pie if you're coming to the
ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference. 

If you get the above, you probably are already set to join us next week for the 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference in Nashville. (If not, shame on you!).

And having just reviewed the latest registration list, I can report that we have an all-time record attendance.  But there's still room for those of you still not committed. Register here. Don't miss out. There will be pie. 

(Nearly) Last Chance To Join Us In Nashville For ALI-CLE's Eminent Domain Conference

You can also fly, drive, or bike to the upcoming 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference. in Nashville. Limited space still available, so don't delay further and register now. We're on track to record attendance, so you don't want to miss the best nationally-focused three-day program on our area of law.

Takings, Knick, compensation, appraisals ... and a bit of fun thrown in. We have many new attendees, and many new speakers, too.  

Space Still Available For ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Nashville Jan 23-25, 2020

If you get this, you need to attend the 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 23-25, 2020, in Nashville.

And if you don't get this, you need to attend more. 

Register here. 

What's At 712 4th Street, S.W., Washington DC? Your Invite To The 2020 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference (Jan 23-25, Nashville)

Shades Of Preseault In Big SCOTUS Superfund Arguments

We are noted for our ability to find takings and property issues nearly anywhere, and two cases argued today at the Supreme Court -- where we had the pole position in the Bar line as the above photo proves -- are no exception, even though the first was a case about a tax refund, and the second was about the Superfund statute. 

The tax case was a bit of a stretch, we admit. But there was a brief colloquy about how a taxpayer has property rights to any refund. When we heard that, we sure perked up. There was more to glom onto in the second case on CERCLA (Superfund) where the issue is whether the federal statute allows property owners whose land is contaminated to sue the contaminator under state tort and property law to clean it up. 

As we understand the issues, Atlantic Richfield is such a contaminator, and is or has remediated certain sites in Montana under an EPA-approved Superfund plan. Private property owners sued separately under Montana law for trespass and nuisance, seeking damages (which, under Montana law, must be used to remediate the property). While the Court didn't seem too interested in any federal preemption question, many of the Justices actively questioned the three advocates about whether CERCLA leaves any room for state property and tort law to protect private property owners. 

And here's where we get to our takings gem of the day: Justice Gorsuch (who was followed up with a question from Justice Sotomayor), asked whether depriving property owners of their right to recovery under Montana law might be a taking. (We are paraphrasing, of course, but that was the drift of his question.) Although the advocate didn't answer directly -- indeed, as we see it, he didn't answer this question at all -- this perked our ears up, because we think it was getting to the point of whether this case presents one like Preseault v United States where the Court upheld the Rails-to-Trails Act against a Commerce Clause challenge, but also noted that preventing the operation of a state property law easement reversion might be a taking. As we takings nerds know, that has proven very true. 

As we saw today's thread, maybe Justice Gorsuch was getting at the idea that yes, the EPA's remediation plan can be both a "floor and ceiling" (as many Justices characterized CERCLA), setting both minimum requirements for compliance, and prohibiting state action above-and-beyond. And thus, private property owners may be prohibited from exercising their state law remedies fully, and they cannot through a state court judgment require a polluter to do more than the EPA requires. But if that's the case, maybe the EPA is on the hook for compensation for taking state law claims and remedies. 

Check it out. The transcript will be available soon. Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Wood was also in the courtroom, and we're sure he'll have a more informed view of the environmental law aspects of the case. Stay tuned. 

Don't Miss Out: Join The "Big Guns" And Secure Your Space At ALI-CLE's Upcoming Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan 23-25, 2020, Nashville)

We were not as creative as our colleague Paul Henry (see below), but our Planning Co-Chair Joe Waldo and I wanted to personally invite you to join the "big guns" in our area of law at the 37th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 23-25, 2020, in Nashville, Tennessee.

We've assembled an excellent faculty, and an agenda that covers the hot topics of the day. Go here to view the complete faculty list and agenda. Water rights, Knick, appraisal, ethics, civil rights, and a whole lot more in three days of the longest (and we think best) conference in our area of law. Also, for those new to the field, Andy Brigham and Jack Sperber are again leading their "Eminent Domain 101" program. A great way to learn the topic, or for experienced lawyers to get a quick refresher on the basics. Your registration allows free movement between all sessions and all tracks, so you can choose your menu ala carte.  

Of course, we're doing more than simply "talking shop," and we shall have our usual full slate of networking events, thanks to some very generous sponsors. Our faculty and attendees are well-known for being some of the friendliest and most welcoming in the business. And this is Nashville, and all that entails.

Register now. Spaces are already filling up. We are already at 25% higher registrations than at this point last year for the 2019 Palm Springs conference. The past few years have either sold out or come close, and the hotel block isn't unlimited. We want you with us, so sign up now!

Register Now! ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Nashville, Jan 23-25, 2020)

Registration underway, so come join us! Agenda full of hot topics in takings and appraisal law! The best national faculty! Renew friendships, and make new colleagues! And Nashville! 

Download the brochure and make your plans for January. (Don't wait, we've sold out the past three years.)

Here's The Agenda And Faculty For The 2020 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Nashville, Jan 23-25, 2020

You overwhelmingly asked for Nashville, and we're bringing it to you!

Get ready, and hold your place now: here's the list of programs and speakers for the 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held at the Downtown Nashville Hilton, January 23,- 25, 2020. Two-and-a-half days with top-notch national faculty (lawyers from both sides, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, relocation experts, and others).  

Early registration and group rates are available now. 

Here are just some of the programs:

• Featured Presentation: Property Rights as Civil Rights: Seeking Justice Though the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Hon. Jonathan Apgar, Jamila Johnson, Alan Ackerman. Moderator: Leslie Fields.
• Making Sense of the New Rules After Knick v. Township of Scott: Where Do I Go, What Do I Do? David Breemer, Smitha Chintamaneni, Professor Bethany Berger. Moderator: Professor Steven Eagle.
• When A River Runs Thought It: Water Rights and Takings. Nancie Marzulla, Hertha Lund, and Charles McFarland. 
• Passive Takings by Government Inaction. Professor Christopher Serkin.
• Show, Don't Tell: The Dos and Don'ts of Demonstrative Evidence. John Murphy, Jeffrey Hamill.
• Is Close Enough Good Enough? Establishing the Date of Valuation in Direct and Inverse Cases. Neil Olson, Bill Ryan.
• Creative Approaches to Solving Difficult Appraisal Problems, Edward Burg, Bob Grace, MAI, Michael Rikon. Moderator: Joseph Waldo. 
• All You Need is Love: New Frontiers in Alternative Dispute Resolution in Eminent Domain. Cortney Young, Dwight Merriam.
• Road Warriors: Building and Trying an Eminent Domain Case From Your Laptop. Paul Henry, Jody McSpadden.
• Special Benefits: The Givings Clause? Heather Cunningham, Randy Smith.
• How To Try and Settle Pipeline Cases. Thomas Peebles, Melissa Glassman.
• Going Where No Court Has Gone Before: The Tension Between the Courts and Appraisal Methodology. Kevin Walsh, Kannon Conway. 
• Responding to Project Changes: Valuing a Taking When Government Action Changes or is Ongoing. Meghan Largent, W. Andrew Gowder. 
• Responding to the Abuse of Motions in Limine. Anthony Della Pelle, Williams James (invited)

There's also an Ethics program. For that, we are doing something a little different this year, with a special don't-miss presentation, "Surviving the Daily Fistfight: Finding Your Resilience When Every Day is a Battle" with Clint Schumacher, Christian Torgrimson, and Michael Ryan. 

And for those new to the field, or old hands who would like a refresher course, there's the "101" track on Thursday, going through an eminent domain case from A to Z. 

And this isn't the complete list, and there's more on relocation, regulatory takings from both sides of the case, effective strategies to determine unity of lands, fixtures, national updates for eminent domain and regulatory takings, and the "open mike" National Forum (where practitioners from around the nation share their issues and cases).

Look for the complete brochure shortly on the Conference web page on the ALI-CLE site.

And of course, there's Nashville. We're right around the corner from all that the town has to offer. Music City, USA. Hot chicken. The Grand Ole Opry. Country Music Hall of Fame. The Hermitage. 

So make your flight and hotel reservations now. Don't miss out. The attendance at the last several conferences has been record-setting, and the conference block at the hotel has sold out.

Join us - old friends and new colleagues! 

Get Ready: The 2020 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Conference Agenda Coming Soon

The final agenda and faculty list will soon be officially published, but we wanted to give you a preview of what is in store at the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 23-25, 2020, at the Nashville Hilton (downtown, just a few steps away from everything that Nashville has to offer). 

Don't miss out: in recent years, we've been at-or-near capacity, and the conference hotel has even sold out a couple of times. Visit the ALI-CLE website to register and hold your space. 

Here are some of the things we'll be discussing: 

• Making Sense of the New Rules After Knick v. Township of Scott: Where Do I Go, What Do I Do?
• The Missing Link in Valuing Fixtures
• When a River Runs Through it: Water Rights and Takings
• Responding to Project Changes: Valuation When Government Action is Ongoing
• Property Rights as Civil Rights: Seeking Justice Through The Fifth Amendment
• Special Benefits: The Givings Clause?
• How To Try and Settle Pipeline Cases
• And, of course Ethics. 

Many of our expert faculty are returning, but we're also featuring many new presenters who have never been on our dais before. And a mix of perspectives and backgrounds: property owners' counsel, condemning agency lawyers, public interest, judges, and legal scholars. Plus a chance to meet your colleagues from across the country. Make connections, and see old friends. 

Early bird registration underway here. See you there.